In which we flip

To flip or not to flip, that is the question. Or is it?

It seems that the one thing that almost everyone agrees on is that the flip in PF doesn’t work. Too often we’ve seen one-sided topics, and once in a while teams that are lucky enough to flip that side every time, who make it to elims (and maybe through them) never having to debate the other side. CFL has already kiboshed it, and it’s probably just a matter of time before the NSDA does as well. Au revoir, eh? On the other hand, and I’m sure this is a minority opinion, but I’d still like to flip for which side goes first. Over the years there has been a (false) idea of presumption for the neg in LD, based on the (real) idea of presumption for the neg in policy. More to the point, there’s a belief in LD (unfortunate) that the neg has an inherent advantage due to structure. It would be nice to eliminate a possible structural advantage in PF. Won’t happen, though, I’m sure.

The other thing I’d like to see full-time is a two-month span for PF topics. One month just isn’t enough. Too often teams will pass on a topic because they would only debate it once, and they feel that that’s too much work for too little results. I can especially sympathize with this with younger debaters who don’t have the experience to create structures that they can work with over multiple resolutions (cf. extemp). Also topics mature over time. The first weekend of any topic tends to have a lot of malarkey that goes away by the next weekend, or at least that’s the way it used to be. And topics continue to mature during their lifespan. But if the next weekend is another topic entirely, that won’t happen. We get caught in the early malarkey stages more often than not, especially for those teams debating the rez only one time.

Apparently there was a lot of discussion of all of this at the NSDA meeting this summer. I look forward to seeing what was actually decided.

In which we get closer to Rather Large Bronx

I’ve been chivvying up people to get their paradigms in for Rather Large Bronx. I’m rather surprised by the number of seriously solid LD judges without paradigms, but I have a feeling that this is a result of the loss of the wiki, and not obduracy on their part. It is nice to see everything in one place on tabroom, though. The list of judges shows whether or not they have a paradigm up. Thank you, Professor CP. As we get closer to the deadline, aside from more nudging, I’ll send them emails directly to get them off the schneid. And we really will drop their sorry keisters if they don’t do it.

I sent out a new How To Judge PF doc (http://www.jimmenick.com/vault/PF_intro.pdf). It’s not much different from my previous one, but this time there’s pictures and some info on evidence challenges. Evidence challenges seem to have diminished, though. Once teams started to realize that, A) tab wasn’t empowered to do anything, and B) they had to go all in during the round, they ceased seeing this as a cheap way to possibly win a round. I certainly don’t believe that all evidence (much evidence?) is perfect, but I also don’t believe that the PF world is filled with freebooters making this stuff up. Which, of course, is one of the reasons why I prefer dealing with real teams with real coaches, where there’s someone reputable and experienced in control. Kid-run teams and independents? Not so much.

Pennsylvania Jeff, who’s working with Kaz on Bronx Policy tab, sent us info yesterday that the NSDA had modified their internet usage rule in the latest Rostrum. Sadly, it wasn’t posted when I went to check it out (not that I didn't believe Jeff, but there might be other stuff of note, especially on PF), but we did pass it on to the Bronx Poobahs. Essentially it says you can do research if you want, but why would you want? No communication though, although as I’ve said about both these things, they don’t make a lot of sense. The only viable cheating scenario is that you have a scout in the round digging into research while the round is happening and passing it along to you in camera. But this is a level of cheating worthy of Facebook conspiracy nuts. It’s not so much who has the personnel, as who has the motivation? I can’t imagine there would be a lot of personal satisfaction over winning a round this way. And if debate isn’t about a team’s personal satisfaction, what’s the point?

In which we briefly nod at the new resolutions

Resolved: In a democracy, the public’s right to know ought to be valued above the right to privacy of candidates for public office.

I haven’t liked this since I first heard it when it was proposed. I was obviously in the minority.

While I grant there are some things about a candidate we have a right to know, this resolution presumes we have a right to know everything. There are no qualifiers in the rez, not a one, end of story. We have a right to know (or not) everything, including, say, if a candidate has had an abortion, or uses birth control devices, the sort of things that are simply nobody’s business but one’s own, and while they may have bearing on prejudices about a candidate, a bad thing, they might play no role in the office that candidate aspires to. Matters of public record, opinions on issues, that sort of thing? Yes. If you sit in your room and drink yourself into a stupor, it would be nice to know that before I vote for you, but I don’t have to right to know that. If you leave the house stone drunk in public, I do have a right to know that. Do I want to argue the difference? No way. Nor would I want to listen to the arguments. With today’s politics, which cannot be ignored even in values debate (or is it, cannot be ignored especially in values debate?), these rounds will be a mess.

Resolved: The United States federal government should impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry.

A thorny issue all around, and a real one, and an important one. I don’t know how you throw evidence at this, once you get past R&D costs vs impoverished patients (dull), but at the societal level, I’m fascinated by it. I don’t know if it will debate well, but it’s a valiant stab at the topic, especially in our capitalist, anti-socialized medicine culture. NOTE: In the real world, the only people against subsidized health care are the ones who don’t need the subsidies.